Enriquez, Thea Dara Mae O.

Political Science – 3A
tdmoenriquez@addu.edu.ph

Martial Law Retrospect in relation with Duterte's current declaration

Review of Related Literature

Martial Law: A Retrospection

When Ferdinand Marcos became the President of the Philippines in 1956, the
country was considered as one of the great models of Third world economic and
political success, Marcos was also acknowledged as one of the most brilliant lawyers in
Asia that time (Overholt, 1986).
Proclamation no. 1081 or Marcos’ Martial Law left distraction and confusion
among Filipinos. Human rights were neglected and people were abused. The military
were the ones who managed and controlled the laws; official’s right to rule was
deceased due to the power Marcos took over traditional election was not made that is
why he was the president of the Philippines for more than 20 years (The Philippines
During Martial Law, 2017).
Martial law has been imposing positive and negative effects to Philippines that
led to debatable situations which are still evident until now. These effects not only refer
to the people of the Philippines but also on its economic status and national policies
itself.
According to Finance Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez III, there is no threat
inflicted on the economy of the country and that the military still controls the government
installations and major infrastructures. Also, Martial Law declared by President Rodrigo
Duterte ensured that business transactions would not be affected and business facilities
are protected from the threat of terrorism (as cited in De Vera, 2017). The National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) released the statement, that the
economy will not be affected despite temporary disruptions brought by pending policies,
programs, and projects. (National Economic and Development Authority, n.d).
 According to Human Rights Watch (2017), President Rodrigo Duterte’s
declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao suspended the writ of habeas corpus and
empowered the Philippine military to supersede civilian authorities in enforcing the law.
During the Marcos’ regime, torture has been one of the ways to punish those
who resist in abiding the rules. The most common physical tortures were; electric
shocks, Russian roulette, beating, pistol-whipping, strangulation, cigar and flat iron
burns and pepper torture. Where Filipinos were treated like animals by their fellow
countrymen.
Torture is used to extract confessions from people suspected to be involved in
treason, insurrection and rebellion, or to make the victim implicate somebody. To do this
to a small sector of our society is meant to scare the community at large. The desired
effect of this kind of ordeal inflicted on political detainees was beyond physical. Unlike
the wounds that are temporary and may heal in a matter of days, being subjected to
such an extreme kind of pain traumatized the victims. These victims aimed to break the
spirit. But the spirit of freedom despite torture, soared among many of these freedom
fighters who carried on fighting until victory was achieved in 1986.
To this day, the thousands of victims of the military rule imposed on the
Philippines on 21 September 1972 still carry the marks of the torture these people
suffered in the hands of the military.
Proclamation No. 216
Martial Law has been a mark for Filipinos due to the past regime of the late
president Ferdinand Marcos. The said policy left injuries unaided because of the
manslaughter committed by the Armed Forces to protect the current administration by
that time. The two-decade long imposition cultivates the minds of the people to bring
back their rights and never go back to that certain position again. The recent
implementation of Martial Law, by the Duterte Administration, in Mindanao made the
people speculate whether it will be used for his self-interest or not. It made them aware
of the last time this law has been passed and used it for power. Even if both times have
the same reason, the society still hopes that they will have different results.
Many people think that the currently imposed martial law is like imposing a
military government in the country. According to Gloria (1947), military government is
exercised in time of war in or outside the boundaries of a state, while martial law is
simply public exigency wherein growing pending war may still appear in the time of
peace.
Martial law is a military government movement involving the suspension of
ordinary law. The government uses its power to enforce their rule over the public.
Recently in Mindanao, Martial law has been implemented due to the occurrence of
rebellion. President Rodrigo Duterte on May 23 set the whole Mindanao under military
law following the assault of the Islamic State-enlivened Maute gathering. The fight
between government powers and the radical’s proceeds with more than 400 dead and
thousands dislodged (Tupas, 2017).
Up to this day, Mindanao is still under the decree of Martial law. Undoubtedly, the
implementation of the rule has its effects to the country. Because of the brief time of this
incident and the desire for early resolution, there are undiscussed economic impacts
that will be important as the conflict stretches and drags out. Remote and residential
tourism in Mindanao are now influenced as foreign tourism warnings have been issued.
Domestic travel to Mindanao from different regions has been shortened. Airlines as of
now have crossed out and diminished flights to Mindanao territories, as have all traveler
vessels by boat or bus (Almendras, 2017). Martial law doesn’t only affect the country
but also the people residing in the Philippines. Some of them protested to put an end to
the rule including those unaffected of the law and outside of Mindanao. Larger part of
Filipinos communicated support for the military law announcement of President Rodrigo
Duterte, a second Quarter Social Weather Stations review uncovered. The review,
discharged on Tuesday and led among 1,200 respondents from June 23 to 26,
indicated 57 percent said "it is just that he announced it in the whole Mindanao"
(Corrales, 2017). Drawing a conclusion from the statement released, Filipinos in
Mindanao who experienced terrorism are cooperating with the Martial law to ensure
their security.

This study aims to decipher whether the Implementation of Martial Law in

Mindanao was effective in making the lives of Mindanaoans safe, given its history. The
literature started by presenting the history of Martial Law and how political leaders
implemented it here in the Philippines. It further described how the implementation
through different time drawn a positive and negative effects to people specifically in all
aspects of the Philippines. In conclusion, it stated the importance of studying and
understanding the functions of martial law in the society and how it would affect the
whole country.
As a whole, this study will serve as a support in providing the readers further
understanding and knowledge about the research topic, it will also give the researchers
various ideas that would guide them in crafting the research paper.

Resources

Overholt, W.H. (1986). Asian Survey. The Rise and Fall of Ferdinand Marcos,
26, 1137- 1163. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2644313

Wurfel, D. (1977). Martial Law in the Philippines: The Methods of Regime

Survival. Pacific Affairs, 50(1), 5-30. doi:10.2307/2756116

TOTANES, V. (2010). "History of the Filipino People" and Martial Law A

Forgotten Chapter in the History of a History Book, 1960-2010. Philippine Studies,
58(3), 313-348. Retrieved August 30, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42634638

Durdin, T. (1975). The Philippines: Martial Law, Marcos-Style. Asian Affairs, 3(2),
67-82. Retrieved August 30, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30171506

Rosenberg, D. (1974). Civil Liberties and the Mass Media under Martial Law in
the Philippines. Pacific Affairs, 47(4), 472-484. doi:10.2307/2755948

Thomas C. Nowak. (1977). The Philippines before Martial Law: A Study in

Politics and Administration. The American Political Science Review, 71(2), 522-539.
doi:10.2307/1978346
 Hunt, C. (1980). Philippine Values and Martial Law. Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies, 11(1), 110-121. Retrieved August 30, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20070329

Richter, L. (1984). POLICY-MAKING IN MARTIAL LAW PHILIPPINES: THE

RHETORIC AND THE REALITY. Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast
Asian Studies, 2(1), 12-45. Retrieved August 30, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40860192

Youngblood, R. (1978). Church Opposition to Martial Law in the Philippines.

Asian Survey, 18(5), 505-520. doi:10.2307/2643463

Landé, C. (1981). Philippine Prospects after Martial Law. Foreign Affairs, 59(5),
1147-1168. doi:10.2307/20040908

McCallus, J. (1989). THE MYTHS OF THE NEW FILIPINO: PHILIPPINE

GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA DURING THE EARLY YEARS OF MARTIAL LAW.
Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 17(2), 129-148. Retrieved August 30, 2020,
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29791974

Montiel, C., & Chiongbian, V. (1991). Political Psychology in the Philippines.

Political Psychology, 12(4), 759-777. doi:10.2307/3791556

Banerjee, S. (1979). Rule of Family under Martial Law. Economic and Political
Weekly, 14(1), 19-22. Retrieved August 30, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4367222

Coronel, S. (2013). Philippines: Free as a mocking bird. In Williams L. & Rich R.

(Eds.), Losing Control: Freedom of the Press in Asia (pp. 147-168). ANU Press.
Retrieved August 30, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vj71c.13
 Grossholtz, J. (1974). Philippines 1973: Whither Marcos? Asian Survey, 14(1),
101-112. doi:10.2307/2642842